It’s one of those “I can’t believe he said that” moments.
“I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could — if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.”
Like Kryptonite To Stupid
It’s one of those “I can’t believe he said that” moments.
“I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could — if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.”
A very, incredibly stupid thing to say, but you need to give the whole context here. The man, while, again, stupid, does not just come out and suggest this. I encourage everyone click on the link and read the whole conversation.
He follows the statement up with, “That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.”
I can’t fucking believe he said that.
Yes, everyone should click through and read the whole quote and the context. But the idea that it some how softens what this asshole said is straight up bullshit. Oliver and many of us here have just gone through a grueling discussion about race, language and politics over the use of the word “articulate.” After much head banging it hit me that the most loaded, charged word in what Cap’n Ed said wasn’t ‘articulate’ but ‘black.’ This culture has such a deeply rooted, fucked up problem with race that Bennett — no matter how much he protests against his hypothetical — is convinced that blackness is equated with crime. When Bennett thinks black, he thinks crime. I would argue that all of us are guilty of this because, again, how deeply fucked up this culture is.
I use my own personal example of being raised by racists parents in California. My dad always used the word Mexican like an epithet, soaking it with as much contempt and venom as he could. To this day, no matter how hard I try to scrub this shit from my soul, I cannot shake the feeling that I’ve insulted someone when I use the word Mexican to describe their nationality. When you pull back and recognize that we live in a racist society — still less than 50 years from the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — we all have to do better to clean shit from our souls and be aware of what we are saying. Bennett didn’t say if you remove poverty or segregation or inequal opportunity you will reduce crime. He said, if you get rid of BLACKS you will reduce crime. I don’t give a fuck what the book he was referring to said about class or income or single mothers or whatever. When Bennett thinks crime he thinks black. He may be oppossed to abortion but he still said “your crime rate would go down.” Fuck that. This guy and anyone who defends him needs to wake up.
Im glad you think the comment was stupid, since it was (as well as repulsive). But even in its context nothing changes. Of course, Bennett is against abortion, and considers that “morally reprehensible.” But it doesnt change what he said about less black babies reducing the crime rate.
He’ll be on tonight, or as soon as his press agent can get him some good paying, high visibility spots.
Is this our famous Morals Czar, Bill Bennet? The guy who wrote “The Book of Virtues?”
I agree with most everything said to this point.
I just wanted to distinguish between him suggesting that this be done (which IMO is how it’s posted), and him using it in a racist hypothetical.
No, but the crime rate would definitely go down!
I think all Republicans should be lined up against a wall and shot, although that would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do.
Does this sound any better?
Okay… well thought out points, but here’s the deal - as stated by frameone:
Fuck that. And fuck bill “moral compass” bennett…
Wait wait, don’t tell me, I know this one. If he gets called out on this he will say “to the extent that my comments have offended anyone…”
Anyone want to place a bet?
Oh, and the crime rate would surely go down.
Technically its probably true, as if you eliminated any large enough segement of the population (regardless of color), crime would probably go down, but it says nothing more insightful than “if you killed everybody the crime rate would go down”.
Nether statement mentions the horrifying spike in crime that such a mass murder (I will call forced abortion murder) would represent.
Hey, if we stole everything theft would go down!
Yes. Definitely. We should underscore that Bennett is oppossed to using abortion to get rid of blacks. Beyond that we’re not sure how he thinks it should be done.
How long until Bennett is on Hannity and Colmes, or some other right wing safe haven, trying to defend himself? The guy should be treated like radioactive waste.
Oh this should be interesting. The guys that wrote the Freakonomics book are scheduled to be on Good Morning America on the 29th. I wonder if they’ll discuss Bennett’s intepretation of their work.
http://www.freakonomics.com/
Oh yeah, I can’t believe I completely left out a justice system statistically proven to be weighted against offenders of color thanks to bad legilslation pushed by fear-mongering conservatives such as three strikes laws. Gimme a fucking break.
Yes, it was an offensive comment.
The elephant in the room is, however, still there: 12% of the population represent 50% of criminals convicted and serving time.
But it is easier to blame it on the “white male hegemony” than to actually take responsibility for one’s own action. As long as black Americans continue to blindly follow the lead of Farakhan, Jackson and Sharpton, there isn’t much hope for a reformation.
So Bennett’s hypothetical solution is to kill ‘em all. No problem with that?
Mike — There’s no comparison between equating blackness with crime and providing free, LEGAL health care to people in trouble. I’m not really interested in being too civil about it, either. You’re a fucking idiot for suggesting there is.
And RIR, as for you, in Bennett’s formulation he equates blackness with crime, not poverty or any of the systemic failings of this country that lead to it such as suburban “tax revolts,” redlining, predatory lenders, a failing dismal health care system, an inadequte minimum wage, the flight of manufacturing jobs over seas, piss poor education funding, oh and your everyday run of the mill racism. Yes people should take personal responsibility. But what about the still, after all these decades, unequal playing field on which you expect one particular group of people to do that?As long as conservative leaders like Bill Bennett continue to equate blakcness ITSELF with crime — which is exactly what he did — none of this other shit can change because guys like Bennett, with a nod and a wink, make it okay to discriminate. And again, no civility from me here today, you’re a fucking idiot, too.
Then you’re not trying very hard.
Bennett suggested that aborting all black babies would result in a lower crime rate. His statement implies that there would be a happy side to genocide.
Planned Parenthood offered a free legal medical service to any displaced person regardless of color. The offer wasintended to provide a direct medical serice to displaced women, not as a hypothetical exercise in social engineering.
Does that clear it up for you?
frameone - as far as the authors are concerned… any publicity is good publicity, hell they may stretch it out by slamming Bennett’s out of context quotation.
Sorry SadieB - granma told me to never take a sucker bet…
And no, you lunk, a small fraction of 12% of the population represents a disproportionate number of those in prison.
Sorry, but I don’t see much difference between Bennett’s comments and Planned Parenthood’s initiative to give free abortions to Hurricane Katrina refugees — most of whom are black. No one on the Left seemed to find that plan offensive, and Planned Parenthood certainly doesn’t consider it to be “morally reprehensible.”
My apologies, Quacker. I should have been more clear. I do think, however, you understood completely what I was conveying.
“Members of 12% of the population represent 50% of criminals convicted and serving time.” Better?
And, as I stated, I found Bennett’s comment offensive. Ergo, I had “a problem with it”. Simple enough for you?
We have actual, honest discussions about race all the time on the leftie bogs. Where have you been? It’s one of the most important problems our country faces today.
For Cellulose, Mike and RIR et. al.:
How about just a simple: Yes, it was a stupid offensive thing to say and Bennett should apologize.
And leave it at that?
‘I found Bennett s comment offensive. Ergo, I had a problem with it .’
You had a problem with it and then turned right around and blamed the very people that Bennett was maligning. You have a problem with Bennett but instantly let him off the hook by suggesting that black people themselves have given him the grounds for what he said. Great. You’re a true companssionate conservative, RIR.
This is a real question, though I do not suspect a real discussion around here. Is it possible for the right and left, or just Americans in general, to have an actual conversation or discussion about race without it rapidly degenerating into somebody using racist terms, or on the other hand, somebody being accused of being a racist because they do not agree with you ?
Are we really surprised?
Bennett merely gave voice to what most GOPers think.
Stupid thing to say. Dumb.
Would you say it that as accurate as saying white republicans continue to blindly follow the lead of Rush Limbaugh ?
Exactly.
Ok, maybe I’m a little ignorant here, so perhaps rightisright could clear some things up for me:
How is it that “black Americans continue to blindly follow the lead of Farakhan, Jackson and Sharpton”. What makes you say this is true? Would you say it that as accurate as saying “white republicans continue to blindly follow the lead of Rush Limbaugh”?
Also I guess I’m not that familiar with what Farakhan, Jackson and Sharpton advocate. Do they all march in lockstep? And where, exactly, do they advocate committing crimes?
Face it, JD, you choose to consort with racists and bigots. You vote for them. You defend them at every turn. You repeat their talking points.
Yet, you demand that we not acknowledge this fact?
You still don’t get it, do you, RightIsRight?
The formulation of your statement asserts that the defining characteristic of the 12 percent–blackness–is correlated with criminality. That’s your “elephant.”
Can you really think of no other explanation for the disproportionate number of black inmates in prisons?
Possible, but difficult.
It’s hard to find two people from opposite sides of the aisle who have compatible notions of what the word “racism” even means. So a statement like “Racism is widespread among white Americans” will have different meanings and different emotional impact on the participants in any such conversation.
Luckily, the blogosphere offers an abundance of forums hosted by black commenters–both left and right–where one can lurk and learn.
What do you expect of a degenerate gambler?
jadegold : How am I consorting with racists and bigots ? Your hubris is truly remarkable. When have I defended a racist? When did I demand that you not acknowledge something you consider to be a “fact”?
Thank you, Quaker. It did not surprise me at all that you were the only one that had a reasoned response, despite our routine disagreements on issues. It would be nice if there could be a discussion where all of the rhetorical ammunition was set aside. There are too many words, and phrases, used by each side, that essentially halt the potential for an actual discussion (ie. jadegold’s prior comment).
Sadie, what I was referring to was a discussion, not some group of people calling those that disagree with them names.
JD what do you want to discuss? On a policy level, personal responsibility is important for everyone to take in their lives but there are still a lot of major, systemic challenges that face us as a nation which need to be addressed.
On a cultural/social level we have to continue to acknowledge that race and the legacy of America’s past continues to confound progressive and communication.
Katrina showed this once again as clear as day. Digby has written a lot about it. Getting help to the people who needed it most was complicated by what seems to be an innnate fear of blacks — especially blacks as a community. The rumors of wide spread chaos –murder, rape, crime etc. — are indicative of this. There was no evidence to support the repeated claims of massive, out of control violence, but Americans saw images of large groups of black people — peaceful groups, mind you — and that was all that seemed to be needed to confirm the rumors. As a result, cops in local parishes blocked the roads out and emergency supplies heading in were held up or stopped.
Here you have in a nutshell how deep, irrational and unresolved social/cultural racial fear impacted policy directly. It’s what happens all the time in this county only in the case of Katrina it happened in real time, compressed into a few days and on national television.
If comments likes Bennett’s go unchallenged the problem only gets worse. Those who make apologies for him or attempt to rationalize what he said are equally to blame.
I am especially pissed now after the “articulate” discussion. So many conservatives accussed Oliver of playing the race card as if Cap’n Ed wasn’t deliberately mobilizing race in a political way. As if he was just complimenting a candidate. He wasn’t. Ed was implying the the dems fear nothing more than a black conservative — enough to break the law. In other words, it was Steele’s race, not his politics that made him a threat. Once again a conservative was associating blackness with fear. I happen to think he exposed himself with the use of the word ‘articulate’ but it was the word black that was really manipulating in a patently political way. So that why I’m a little less tolerant of conservatives at the moment for defending Bennett.
JD: You seem exercised not by what Bennett said but the very fact some people take offense at such racist nonsense. Why is that?
Ah geez, I guess I jumped in late on cellulose, so never mind that, sorry.
Anyway, the only appropriate response to ANYTHING Big Bill sez EVER is….
WANNA BET?
JD –
Race is difficult to discuss, in my opinion, because it’s so wrapped up in fear. Fear of blacks, fear of whites, fear of being insensitive, fear of being accussed of something etc. And so there’s always something irrational mucking up the discussion. How can we get around that fear?
Well, it’s hard because not everyone comes to the table with goodwill. Like me today, for instance. I was particularly pissed about Bennett’s comments given the discussion last week here and elsewhere about race and politics and I wasn’t willing to give any quarter to those who would try to defend Bennett. I’m still not. It angers me.
By and large, however, I don’t throw around accusations of racism without also acklowedging that I too am susceptible to the same thing. Here’s how it goes for me: Because of my personal background (described in my first comment above) and because of what I know of American history and how I believe it has shaped American society and culture, I have come to accept that, as a white American, racism is in me, but not of me. Which is not a guilt thing.
Indeed, accepting that I too had a lot of negative stereotypes about people of color, especially blacks, swirling around in my head, was hard but it’s also been kind of liberating. I have made a living as a writer and still do write for a pay check. When I first really started talking to people about race and reading about race and racism in America I went through a period of guilt induced self-censorship, or let’s just say PC over-caution, that hurt my writing. I was second guessing every word. It was painful but I worked through it and now I feel, as I said, more free to think and write about these issues, as a white American, because I understand better where some of my ideas and feelings about race come from, what’s informing them, and they influence me. But again, I’m not perfect. As I said, racism is in me, but not of me. Accepting that, however, proved to be a very liberating thing and helped me to be less afraid to talk about race without guilt. Still, it’s something I reasses and reapproach every time it comes up.
jadegold, you presume wrong. I was nothing other than succinct when I stated that his comments were a “Stupid thing to say. Dumb”. Hard to be more succinct than that.
My follow up, though it grew from this discussion, was not necessarily related directly to this topic, specifically, why is it so difficult for the right and the left to have meaningful discussions about race.
frameone, I was not wishing to discuss any particular specific topic, more of a meta type discussion on why these issues are so difficult to discuss.
“Sadie, what I was referring to was a discussion, not some group of people calling those that disagree with them names.”
Check out the Michelle Malkin thread where I got called a racist about 100 times, then come talk to me about “discussion!”
No, really I think Quaker about sums it up. Race is a difficult thing to talk about even when people trust each other. Throw in something like the Right/Left divide and it becomes nearly impossible.
But it shouldn’t be completely impossible. We are an intelligent species, after all, something like this shouldn’t be able to throw us like it does.
The most useful thing I ever ran across regarding racism was a series called Unlearning Racism, written in the 70’s I think.
It goes something like this:
1. Begin with the assumption that all human beings are natural communicators, and that we all desire to be in relationship with each other.
2. Assume that cultural/ethnic/religious differences between people are never the real cause of difficulty.
3. Assume that the real cause is the division created by institutionalized imbalances of power. The conditions which perpetuate these imbalances separate us into target and non-target groups.
4. Members of the target group are socialized to become victims, members of the non-target group are socialized to become perpetrators. Neither of these roles serves our best interests as human beings.
5. Assume that no one wanted these roles. Everyone resisted the social conditioning to take on these roles as best they could.
It goes on, there’s lots more but I think you get the flavor. You can always google it if it appeals to you. Some people find it too touchy-feely. I like it because by saying “Assume,” the writer is saying “none of this can be proven one way or another, so there’s no point worrying about that. Just try adopting these different thought patterns as an experiment and see what that does to your experience of the world.”
Ted, no worries. I wasn’t very clear, and this is a sensitive subject.
Sadie B –
I like what you posted. I’ve obviously heard of the ideas before in different forms but lists can often be clarifying. Looking at numbers 3 and 4 we can begin to see why race cuts so hard across right and life. Thrown into it all the fears and misgivings you have a fundamental difference in the underlying assumptions of how the world works.
3 and 4 essentially assume that society is shaped by power, particularly the imbalance of it, and the individual, whether he or she knows it or not, is influenced and shaped by these structures of power in turn. Conservatives always fiercely resist this idea because they see it as undermining the freedom and will of the individual. In a society like American, they say, the individual is free to think and do what they want and that no larger system of meaning or structure of power effects them in anyway. I, of course, wholly disagree with this. So right away we’re at logger heads in simply defining what it is we are talking about.
Thank you frameone. Though I tend to disagree with practically everything that you have ever typed, that seemed to be a thoughtful answer, unlike some of your brethren.
uh, that should be “cuts so hard across right and left.” Not “right and life.” I am the freaking typo kinf … king.
Thanks frameone. My personal favorite is number 5. That’s the one that really made it possible for me to live in a world with other people in it.
But that’s just it. He resisted as best as he could, not as best as you or I could. Not everybody is strong.
When I was young I had an alcoholic step-father with a temper. He used to get angry with my younger sister and me for the slightest thing. And she would always cave instantly. She never though twice about it, it was always “daddy daddy, I’m so sorry, daddy!”
Me, I couldn’t. I just couldn’t do it. I don’t know why. I could see how well it worked for her, how she never got punished as much as I did, but I couldn’t do it myself. And I hated my sister for it, I despised her.
It was only as an adult that I was able to see that stubborn streak which caused me so much grief as a child was my salvation in many other ways. It was a kind of a gift. My sister had a harder path.
Anyway my point is that Bennet, and others like him, are just like this. Faced with intense pressure to conform and obey, they do so. They will even go on to apply that same pressure to other people. Even when it’s not in their interests, even when it hurts them, too.
When I look at it this way, I can avoid being mad at them.
This is not to be confused with having no desire to fight them. I believe that we should fight them at every turn, we just don’t have to hate them to do so.
“Everyone resisted the social conditioning to take on these roles as best they could.”
I don’t know. I think our dear Mr. Bennett pretty much rolled over.
It would be nice if there could be a discussion where all of the rhetorical ammunition was set aside. There are too many words, and phrases, used by each side, that essentially halt the potential for an actual discussion (ie. jadegold s prior comment).
I agree with everything you say here, JD, but why is it that right-wingers never say anything like this except when THEY are under attack?
Why aren’t principled, reasonable conservatives like yourself organizing a movement to repudiate the Limbaughs and the Savages and all the reactionary hatemongers that have been poisoning our political discourse for the last twenty years?
Say what you like about Rodney King and his “can’t we all get along?” But at least he said that when blacks were beating up whites and not the other way around.
If you aborted every white baby in America, the crime rate would go down. Rightisright has the statistics.
In other news, those crime-fighting Republicans have pardoned some drug dealers: http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=54211
So the question for us to ponder is “Should DeLay have been aborted when he was a fetoid-American?”
Wilbur - Let us use this thread as an example of why I might ask such a question. My initial written reaction to this topic was “Stupid thing to say. Dumb”, and another individual’s response to that was “Face it, JD, you choose to consort with racists and bigots. You vote for them. You defend them at every turn. You repeat their talking points.
Yet, you demand that we not acknowledge this fact? “.
That kind of leap in illogic seemed to reinforce in my mind that some on the left need people like me to be racists, need us to be bigots, so they can claim their self proclaimed moral superiority.
As far as being under attack goes, I am not under attack. Mr. Bennett may feel as though he is under attack, and rightfully so. However, I did not say what he did, do not support what he said, and as such, do not feel that I am under attack.
Limbaugh and Savage do not speak for me, any more than Chmosky and Moore speak for you. They have all become these easy targets for the other side to punch in times of need. Since I am an not a regular listener of either show, I will hold off on criticizing or defending them. However, my guess is that terms like reactionary hatemongers is not the kind of term that engenders any type of discussion.
I feel your pain, JD. The problem is, you posted that admirable sentiment:
Stupid thing to say. Dumb ,
And then two minutes later, before anyone had had a chance to respond to that, you post this:
This is a real question, though I do not suspect a real discussion around here. Is it possible for the right and left, or just Americans in general, to have an actual conversation or discussion about race without it rapidly degenerating into somebody using racist terms, or on the other hand, somebody being accused of being a racist because they do not agree with you ?
You’ll pardon some of us, I hope, if we suspect that your heart was really in your second post rather than your first. That in fact the main purpose of your first post was to set up your second post, as if you were saying “look how reasonable I am in comparison to you raving lefties.” You say in your second post “I do not suspect [sic] a real discussion here”, which pretty much tells us what you think of us and that you’re trolling rather than trying to initiate dialogue.
Maybe none of that was your intent, but that’s how you came across.
I used Limbaugh and Savage as examples, but if you can honestly tell me that you spend as much time preaching civility on any other right-wing forums as you do here, then you will have my apologies and I will lay off you in future.
As for “reactionary” and “hatemonger”, I consider those objective descriptions of the individuals mentioned and can proceed to lay out definitions and evidence if you really want to have a serious discussion about it. Of course if you’re going to take the position that there are no “reactionaries”, “hatemongers” or “racists” except in the realm of political rhetoric, then perhaps we don’t share enough of the same reality to really have a discussion.
Wilbur : You are right, I should have left out the part about not expecting to get an actual discussion here.
The lack of civility, in which I have admittedly been guilty of in the past, is one of my most fundamental problems with politics today.
As I said, I do not attempt to defend Limbaugh. He says what he says, and he can defend himself. I loathe Savage, from the few times that I have listened to him. Fact is, I would rather listen to Franken and Garafalo than Savage. However, their personalities were not my point.
So I return to my thought. Can we have an honest discussion about race without the rhetorical bombs? So far, I have been accused of being a racist and a bigot, and asked to defend Limbaugh and Savage, for criticizing Bennett, and then posing a more of a meta-type question about communications in regards to issues involving race.
JD: Once the villagers get out the pitchforks, axe handles and torches, that’s all she wrote.
Bennet said something bad about black people (with a huge qualifier that has been ignored), and this is all the “evidence” needed to convict all Republicans of being racists.
Makes sense? No.
Will it ever end? Not around here.
Try again, JD. Pointing to a string of well-known and well-documented events is not a blanket condemnation.
Making references to pitchforks, unjust convictions and yes, “blanket stereotypes” is self pity and whining.
You don’t like being called racist? Good, stop being racist. Better yet, do what you can to grab the Republican Party by the collar and make it stop being racist. Then maybe we can get somewhere in this country.
I think I understand where you are coming from because I know a lot of people like this. You think to yourself “I don’t feel racist. I have no personal animosity towards the handful of black (Asian, Hispanic, whatever) people I encounter in my daily life. Therefore I must not be a racist.”
But you know what? You’re not the one who gets to make that call. Other people will judge you on the things you say and do, the things you defend and the company you keep. If you don’t like their judgement, tough. Either change your behavior or get used to it.
Sadie B’s blanket condemnation of the Republican party is exactly the type of language I was discussing upthread.
Self pity and whining? Some are simply pointing out that uber-partisan like yourself prefer to peddle blanket stereotypes over entire clasees of people rather than actually having a discussion.
Qualifier? You mean exacerbator?
He said, basically, if we committed genocide on black people crime would go down. “Not that I’m saying we should …”
That’s not a qualifier it’s just weasel words. If he didn’t mean “kill black people, black people are the cause of crime,” then why did he say it? He can’t have it both ways.
And no, Bennet’s words alone are not being used to convict all Republicans of racism. Bennet’s words are nothing compared to a long-standing pattern of words, policies, actions, and inactions on the part of the Republican Party that go back for decades.
If Republicans are serious about removing the stink of racism from their name it’s going to take a lot more than self-pity and whining on the blogs.
Where did I mention pitchford and unjust convictions?
Show me where I am a racist. Was marrying a minority a racist act? Was having a child of mixed races some action attributable to some underlying racism?
Make the Republican party stop being racist? Apparently the actions that you attibute to one side do not apply when the others have done so. Which party has former Klan members in leadership positions? Which party did Bull Conner belong to? How about Governor Wallace?
Fine. Judge me on the things I say. Judge me on the things I do. Judge me on the things I defend. Judge me on the company I keep. I do not need your approval.
Don’t be an ass. It was Frank D who brought up pitchforks and unjust convictions, and he was the one I was responding to.
And the Democratic Party is absolutely responsible for racist actions in the past. There’s no argument about that. But our party went through a spiritual crisis in the 1960’s and decided we didn’t want to be like that anymore. We left the bigots behind for the Republicans to harvest, and electoral politics haven’t been the same since.
I am beginning to think your ardent desire for a discussion was really just a ruse. You have been offered several chances now, by a couple of different people, and you haven’t taken any of them. It seems all you really want to talk about is how mean liberals are …. and that’s kind of boring.
I wanted to have a discussion that did not involve people like you accusing Republicans being racists. How can you have a conversation, if that is your jumping off point? Then you accuse me of being racist, despite knowing nothing about me, not being able to point out one instance of said allegation, and then complain that I do not really want to have a discussion?
To put it another way: Would you begin a discussion about the future of our government with someone who euated democracy itself with corruption and thought accordingly that fascism was, as a hypothetical, a good idea? No you wouldn’t. What would be the point? We begin with the FACT that democracy is the best system of government yet devised and we go from there. So that’s it. The ground rules are this: Bennett (and Frank) are racists. What do we do about them and how do we respond to their ideas?
Okay Frank –
We got Bennett and you who think there’s some reasonable and acceptable excuse for what he said. That’s two conservatives I’ll call out as racists. Anyone else want to step up for the branding?
JD and Frank –
The calm, considered discussion you want so dearly to have begins with this: What Bill Bennet said is utterly reprehensible and should be condemned by anyone who claims to care about decency, fairness and the American Dream. That’s it. Period. No let’s look at the context, let’s try to understand it from Bill’s point of view. Because the discussion that’s important here isn’t whether Bennett was right or wrong or taken out of context. He is wrong and nothing else he said mitigates the ugliness of what he said. The FACT that Bennett’s comments are racist is the beginning of the real discussion which is: WHY does he equate blackness itself with crime and how can we, as a nation, counter this belief in a constructive manner? We can’t censor Bennett but we can get together, conservatives and liberals, to limit the damage and appeal of this kind of pernicious thinking. But he ground rules are clear and obvious: What Bennett said was beneath contempt even as a hypothetical. We start from there, no exceptions, or there is no discussion. Because if all you want is to defend or mitigate what Bennett said then you are part of the problem and should be lumped in with him. That’s it. Period.
“I wanted to have a discussion that did not involve people like you accusing Republicans being racists. How can you have a conversation, if that is your jumping off point?”
How’s this for a jumping off point: Problems in society are caused by institutionalized imbalances of power. There are some people, and groups of people, who work to maintain and strengthen those imbalances, and there are some who work to eliminate them. Which one are you? Which one do you want to be?
frameone : was my response anything less than that? Where have I questioned the context, or tried to defend him?
What should we do about people that are racists? Ignore them. Mock them. Call them what they are. But in doing so, make sure that we are calling them out for what they are, rather than what some perceive them to be.
JD –
Okay. But let’s get one thing clear. Bennett is a racist. Got it? He’s had his chance to apologize and so far he hasn’t. It shouldn’t take a day. He should have apologized as soon as he realized what he said and he should have realized what he said as soon as he said it. We are calling Bennett out because he is a racist. Now it’s time to see where everyone else stands. You don’t agree with what Bennett said. Great.
Do you want to say something else? Do you have some other point to make?
frameone : Apparently you are operating under some misguided notion that I am out here defending Bennett. Suffice it to say I am not. Should he have apologized, absolutely.
Then your point would be …..
frameone: You’re another moron who’d have to take classes to be an idiot. You’re calling me a racist? And you think I should take that seriously? You think I now think I’m a racist because you said so?
How could your head be so big and so empty at the same time.
“Branding”? You a - hole.
I don’t what or who turned you into the Black’s “Great White Defender”, but if they could read your posts of late, they’d probably say, “Step off, Chuck Brother, I got this.”
But mind you, frameone, Frank never, never resorts to personal attacks.
Ever.
Defense attorney (Frank): Your Honor, I submit to to you that the District Attorney (Quaker), has twisted the my words. I said, I never attacked anyone, unprovoked. I further submit that calling me a racist was provocative.
DA (Quaker): Your Honor, I object!
Judge: Overruled
I guess you’ve run out of things to say on topic and have decided to attack me instead, eh Frank?